About your Search

20120928
20121006
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
. we cover elections, not economics generally, but ronald reagan was re-elected with a 7.2% because he said it was the morning in america. optimism was what he sold. he was able to say 7.2% is great news, great news. he got re-elected with 49 states. he lost minnesota and the district of columbia with 7.2%. what should obama get with 7.8%? it seems like it's within the range there and everybody is pooh-poohing it and, oh, geez. i know why jack welch is scared, that number is too damn close to reagan's number. >> i think how this works with the president's narrative is that we're moving in the right direction, don't change -- you know, don't change horses, don't go back to a playbook that demonstrably didn't work, the george bush supply side stuff that he can legitimately tie to mitt romney. he had a narrative that said the economy is moving in the right direction, and i think this job report actually strengthens that narrative. and much more than levels of variables like the level of the employment rate, it's momentum that i think forms voters' views on the economy. >> i think it was i
, there will be an increase. the government is wasting enough money already. i believe in the ronald reagan approach -- if i can finish my answer, you should not feed the beast. let's put the beast on a diet and spend a little less money. >> did the department of homeland security, does that count as feeding the beast or not? >> i have no contract with the department of homeland security. one more try in an attack, doesn't work. never done a contract with the department of homeland security. don't have one planned. don't get any money from the government. >> sure. >> you can try all those attacks that you want. i do private business with private individuals. get no money from the government. want to try another one? >> mayor giuliani, if you're inviting it. the difference is that under mitt romney, rich people will pay a lot less in taxes than what they would pay under president obama, because president obama would let the bush tax cuts expire for higher earning individuals only. so rich people pay less under romney and more under obama. that is the ultimate answer, right? >> the ultimate answer is if eithe
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)